Originally Posted by Jmetz
Wow! So, let me get this straight, you guys come onto a thread meant to discuss the future of PMP, and offer absolutely nothing of value to the conversation other than to ridicule a few members who have offered their valid concerns regarding it? Well then, mission accomplished I suppose.
Lets get back on topic, shall we? The grand consensus is that if PMP is to be saved, it will need people who are willing to spend the money to go ride it. The major concern for riders on the fence is that PMP is unsafe due to the lack of on-site EMS and corner workers at track days. So far, and in my opinion, one of the best suggestions has been from Aaron and Snazzy to contact Judy and figure out how many riders would be needed to justify the expense of increased safety measures. Knowing how many riders it would take for Judy to promise enhanced safety at PMP would go a long way to assuaging concerns and getting people off the fence and onto the track, that is, if that number can be achieved. However, PMP will continue to have a difficult time being saved if those concerns aren't addressed because it is losing a market segment of potential customers.
Look at it this way, those who are unwilling to ride PMP because of safety concerns are obviously people that PMP could desperately use. They're not going to compromise and gamble on their safety. And since those people have already expressed their commitment to ride elsewhere until such services are offered, they won't be heartbroken if the track is lost. As such, being dismissive and belligerent towards them is a good way to ensure they never give it a chance. So, keep an open mind, listen to what's being said, and offer constructive criticism rather than useless drivel.
After this I'll stop chiming in because I feel like I'm beating a dead horse already, but this is about money, nothing more. If you are talking about back country skiing and biking, trail riding, or canyon carving, those cost nothing to do. They are not organized, nor monitored by an overseeing body on privately owned and maintained property. You are free to do what you want out there and you have to own the consequences.
When you pay to play at a private facility, you are bargaining with the proprietor for specific conditions, and you should get what you pay for. At a ski resort, when you buy a lift ticket you are paying for staff, such as Ski Patrol, avalanche control, nicely groomed and obstacle-free runs, and that any potential obstacles will be clearly marked. These are assurances of safety. Obviously none of them are 100% preventative. You could still hit a mogul incorrectly and bust your knee. For PMP, people are saying its a nice track, and I believe them. They are likely getting exactly what they pay for. For others, the price simply isn't enough to entice them to ride there. They want more. I don't think they, myself included, said they were unwilling to pay more if it meant getting more. I'd certainly be happy to pay more if it meant my personal concerns were satisfied.
Look, I think all of us are on the same page that practically everything you do has risks, that's not the concern here. What is a concern is that when you ride a track you are paying money in exchange for something: and that is, as I have said earlier, an assurance of safety. For some, that assurance is a relatively clear track with a surface in good repair. For others, they want and expect more: on-site EMS and more corner workers. I haven't read where anybody has stated that they wouldn't be willing to pay more if it meant those things were present.
You're right that it's not a race, but riders can be out there for any number of reasons. They could be working on lines, or they could be working on race setup. Are most of them out there to putt around? Probably not. Regardless, riding on the track is a dangerous activity because the machinery, the speed, and the rider's exposure to the surrounding environment is inherently dangerous. You could come off a slow corner, get aggressive on the throttle too early, suffer a massive high side, and get seriously hurt, or you could walk away without a scratch. The concern is not about eliminating those dangers, it's about mitigating the consequences when mistakes are made. In my earlier post I attempted to illustrate that even a relatively low speed crash can be potentially fatal. I'll grant that situations like that are extremely rare, but if you're serious about your safety, you measure risk from a worst-case scenario, not ideals.
To reiterate: if PMP wants more customers, they know what they need to do to get them. Until they start offering on-site EMS and a reasonable amount of corner workers, they're going to lose that market segment. Until then, those riders will continue spending more money and, in some cases, make a longer drive to ride HPR, and most won't be likely to lose a single night's sleep if PMP closes. I guess what it comes down to is that if you're serious about making sure PMP survives, you give it the best chance possible by expanding its market to previously unreachable customers. Not by dismissing them out-of-hand.
Reply With Quote
Not quite where I was going.
